Forum:Requiring registration
Discussion closed Discussion closed. See below for the result. Introduction It's been brought to my attention that we can set it so that people have to register for an account before they are allowed to edit pages. This would have to be activated by the Wikia staff, but it will cut back on the amount of vandals because most of them won't want to register. This discussion is primarily for the Admins, but if registered users want to add to the discussion, go ahead. — RRabbit42 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Discussion and voting will remain open until 23:59 UTC on June 13, 2009. — RRabbit42 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Discussion Add your viewpoint on this issue here. * Most people that vandalize pages go in, spew their profanity or other vandalization and leave. Most do not return unless they want to see what kind of reaction they get. A majority of these people will not make the effort to register because that means Wikia has more information about them. — RRabbit42 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) *To 888's comment, you're really missing the point. I do not agree with any of that comment, sorry, because the point of this is to stop the IPs who only want to vandalize and therefore do not want to create an account. —'The Flash' [[User talk:SuperFlash101|Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me ''bay-bay!]]'' 13:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC) * If multiple people have edited the same page during a single day, it takes a bit more work to remove the "crappy edit" than just using Undo or Rollback. In regards to trying things, if they create an account then decide they don't like the wiki or just don't want to contribute to it, all they have to do is not use that account here. They can still use that account on any of other wikis that Wikia Entertainment hosts if they want, or they can let the account become inactive if they decide they don't like wikis at all. : Registering for something that may only get casual usage is not out of the ordinary. You see that at grocery stores and clothing stores; at some places, you have to pay for their program. (Barnes & Noble comes to mind, where you can pay $25 to get 10% off purchases for the year, but if you don't spend at least $250 a year, you don't break even.) : 888th, if your concern is that we'll judge them harshly for simply being a new user, I think we already have this covered. A poor edit may warrant a simple Undo, but if I see that there's been several poor edits, I try to explain why the edits weren't good and give them a chance to do better the next time. If it looks like they are being deliberate in making poor edits, I will still make recommendations, not demands, that they change what they're doing. It's only when I see a blatant pattern that they are being deliberate in their actions that I wield the admin club and issue a block. : From what I can see, the other admins perform their duties in much the same way. — RRabbit42 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::There's a reason why all big wikis (such as Wikipedia) keep editing open to anonymous users. There will be potential editors who sit on the fence and don't know whether they should join up or not. By removing anonymous users' right to edit, you are forcing potential editors to make a decision too quickly, because they will have to choose between creating an account or simply choosing not to edit. That is a great way to miss out on potential contributors. Also, my experience is that it's not just the vandals who will not create an account - there are some good contributors who simply refuse to join up. I know a potent example - Omnibender, now a bureaucrat on Avatar Wiki, contributed anonymously from February 2008 all the way till May 2008, when he finally created an account. ::Further, you need to consider whether this will actually reduce vandalism. It might even increase it. Let's consider it from a vandal's point of view. The vandal turns up at a wiki and intends to vandalise it. He finds that you need an account to vandalise. So promptly, he creates an account and goes ahead and destroys a few pages. From that, we can discern that vandals will always vandalise - regardless of what they need to do to do it. Creating an account doesn't take very long, remember. ::As a note, I'd like to put out there that Wikia staff need to approve before changing this type of setting, and from what I can see on recent changes, this is not a wiki with heavy, sustained vandalism. It is therefore unlikely that they will consent peacefully to this. Protecting the site against anonymous users is considered a last resort on Wikia. [[User:The 888th Avatar|'Wjxhuang']], the 888th Avatar {Talk} 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC) * This is the message from Scarecroe, an employee of Wikia Entertainment, that prompted the creation of this discussion. He added this to my User Discussion page below my philosophy on blocking users. — RRabbit42 17:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) :Hi Rabbit! I was just looking at recent changes and noticed that you've had to block a lot of anonymous IPs here. As you know, we're currently spotlighting this wiki, so your traffic is increasing and you'll be getting a lot of new editors. Did you know that you have the option to require a user to login with a username before they edit? Vandals can still create a username and cause trouble, but we've found that it's easier to track and block vandals when they're not just an anonymous IP, and that the extra barrier to entry just to vandalize a page often cuts down the amount of vandalism considerably. Feel free to discuss it with the other admins, and if you choose to go this way, please leave a message on my talk page and I can set it up for you. And let me know if there's anything else I can do to help the wiki grow and attract more helpful members. Thanks! —Scott (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :To 888's point, there is some truth in that. Me, Mai, Phin68, and Phineas Flynn wouldn't be editing as a user here, If we didn't start of editing as an IP. But if we want IP's to sign up, we could put something in the site notice.—Ardi~Correspondence~Talk 00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) *I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. I'm still collecting information on it. Even though it may be a headache to block IP users that have run afoul of our mission, it is part of the job of managing the wiki. Like 888 says, they are the future of the wiki. We have at least one user, Phin68, who started as an IP and may not have registered if he didn't have the opportunity to see if he enjoyed editing before signing up. If you haven't seen an unregistered user that can contribute without causing issues, then you haven't been looking hard enough. The last handful of episodes have been created before any of us admins even knew about them because of an anonymous . Also, most of our issues stem not from the fact the users are unregistered, it is because fans of this series are young and don't understand the rules of the site. They are "kids being kids" and playing around on something they only partially understand. Who's to say that if we forced registration, we wouldn't have a rash of registered "vandals"? —Topher (Talk) 02:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) *As Ard11230 said, I myself started as an IP (see this page) and I ended up correctoing many mistakes in the songs. Although IPs can be nuisances, they shouldn't just be read-onlys either. Phineas Flynn 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :I think we should wait for a little longer. I will remove my vote first, because I am still deciding.—Ardi~Correspondence~Talk 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC) * We just had our first example of what the 888th Avatar was talking about. There's been a person from Mexico that has been trying to change Agent T to a dinosaur 3 times over the last month. : Today, they did it again, and about an hour after that was fixed, they created an account and put the dinosaur in again. In addition, they chose a user name that has profanity in it. (We're not going to debate the level of profanity. In a wiki that is for a kids show, it doesn't belong at all.) This account and the four IP addresses used previously have been blocked for two weeks. : When I created this forum and cast my vote, it was because I knew almost immediately that this was a wiki I wanted to participate in after I first visited it. Needing to try it out first wasn't necessary. Now I see first-hand that even if we require registration, it won't stop people who are determined to vandalize, and it may deter people that do need to try things out before committing to registering, as 888th and Joeyaa have pointed out. : Therefore, I've retracted my vote. — RRabbit42 04:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC) *As I've noticed that, even though we do contain a vast amount of needed rollbacks and blocks due to IPs, and it is not that hard to stop these type of edits, I've retracted my vote. Vandals usually come in the form of IPs, yes, but registered ones can be menaces as well. As 888 and Joey have pointed out, IPs are the ones who due generally decide to edit first, try it out, then likely join. To top it, IPs who act as vandals are mostly just one-timers who vandalize briefly, then never return. But due to the still active amount of IP vandalism, I'm not officially opposing, just withdrawing my vote. Consider me neutral on the subject. The Flash {talk} 04:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC) In favor Cast your vote here if you want to require people to register before they will be allowed to edit pages. * Almost 100% of the people I've had to block or issue warnings to have been anonymous IP users. Very few registered users have been a vandal or a nuisance. I vote in favor of requiring registration. — RRabbit42 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — vote retracted on 04:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC) * Ugh, definitely. IPs generally cause nothing but trouble. I have yet to see an IP on here that follows our policies or does not vandalize. Agreed. —'The Flash' [[User talk:SuperFlash101|Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me ''bay-bay!]]'' 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC) * I agree, the only IP's that I've seen that actually follow are policies are the IP's of those who forget to log-in and Phin68, when he was still editing as an IP.—Ardi~Correspondence~Talk 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC) * I think so too. Almost 100% of IPs vandalize. Only a few users have been blocked. So I agree we should do it some time. —Mai~(Talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC) * Agreed. I see that SSW is the same thing temporarily.Phin68 talk to Phin68 18:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose If you want to allow anonymous IP users to continue to edit pages, cast your vote here. *I think it's a bygone conclusion that I will always oppose things like this. IPs are the most important people on the wiki. They are the potential. They are the people that may be running this wiki in five years time. You would drive a significant portion of this potential away by never giving them a chance to feel out the wiki and decide whether to join. Never underestimate IPs. Some IPs may be more knowledgeable than you are. Anyway, how hard is it to revert a crappy edit? [[User:The 888th Avatar|'Wjxhuang']], the 888th Avatar {Talk} 04:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC) *Trust me on this one, you're going to see at least a 55% decrease in editing (whether good or bad), at least 45% of good edits, yet this wiki does not have a vandal problem. For such a small and young wiki, adding a restriction on editing will only stunt its growth. I've seen wikis that have 95% of IP edits be from a vandal (Twilight Wiki), yet they don't turn this on for the obvious reasons you're missing. Staff don't usually turn this on for wikis, and I can tell you that you can count on one hand the amount of wikis that use it. You are considering blocking the people that are learning and are considering to stay. By saying 'Make an account or go away' you are just telling them you don't want them. It's ridiculous, and let me tell you, you've been warned. ~Joey~ ''^Talk^'' 03:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC) *Take it from a person who once upon a time was an IP editor; enforcing registration will do more bad than good. As said before, editors who may not know what wikis are like yet will never have the chance to know so. I only joined when i realized that by editing, i could make a difference. I realized that I could have my voice heard. If registration was required, I never would have known that, and I wouldn't be here, and neither would Phin68, Mai, or Ardi. As 888 said, IPs are the future of this wiki. They are the ones that may one day be in charge of this wiki. If we require registration, we're closing this wiki off from about four-fifths of the world. As Phineas said, in Backyard Aquarium, "If you love something, set it free." So set this wiki free, and let IPs do their thing. So take it from a guy who knows; although IPs are nuisances sometimes, they shouldn't be read-onlys either. Phineas Flynn 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC) *I think even though IPs vandalize, they're just trying to have fun, AND they're also having fun, and they're just trying to make things better around here, so I oppose requiring registration being done. There's no reason for them to have they're freedom, sorry but, I oppose. AND I also agree with Joey. We should only do this if the IPs like almost always vandalize here. —Mai~(Talk) 06:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Voting results For: 1 vote Against: 4 votes Retracted: 4 votes The motion was defeated. Registration will not be required in order to edit pages. :::::::::::— RRabbit42 23:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Requiring